Proact hasn't finished with Norsk Hydro yet. It's nice to see them picking up the gauntlet though ;-)

The predictable corporate arguments trotted out by Norsk Hydro can, and should be rebutted. More importantly we have now smoked
them out and they have entered the debate. In addition they have named their 'front men' in Iceland. See...

Keep up the pressure by sending the letter below to Norsk Hydro [and Reydaral*] - the news media in Iceland and
Norway, as well as Proact, are included as adressees - please move them to the cc. box of your mail programme.

It is at least a hopeful sign that Mr. Thomas Knutzen has replied on your behalf to a small selection of the hundreds
of messages sent to you on the Karahnjukar power project. For those not fortunate to have received a direct reply a copy has
been posted on the internet.

Your arguments are not only predictable. They are also unconvincing and contradictory.

1. De-coupling of the power and aluminium smelter projects.

You are putting up a lot of smoke here in trying
to convince your critics that "...development of the power plant ... is an entirely Icelandic project". Who are
you trying to fool? Without the power requirements of the smelting plant there would be no need for this gargantuan hydroelectric
project; nor would it be in any way financially feasible. There must be a lot of hidden calculations to make the books balance
even as currently planned. What aren't you telling us?

2. Hydro do not intend to interfere with the public debate
in Iceland.

Other than the fact that Reydaral (in which you have a 50% interest "..partly owned by Icelandic
investors and Hydro.." is unbecoming modesty on your part) is in the centre of the public debate. At the very least your
role might be described as playing Pontius Pilate in the affair. It would be interesting to know who the Icelandic investors
are. It is interesting that the political lobby is so strong and well-positioned.

3. Sustainable use of aluminium;
and other environmental concerns.

All very laudable; but fewer cars are even better than lighter cars and produce
even less harmful emissions. You neglect to mention the scourge of the modern world - the throw-away drinks can. We could
do with fewer of these too.

We are sure that your planned smelting plant would be 'squeaky-clean' and will meet all
the legal environmental requirements.

4. We can still avoid a planned natural catastrophe.

You miss
the message though. An increasing number of people, in Europe and elsewhere, would far prefer to preserve one of the few large-scale,
intact and bio-diverse landscapes left in Europe untouched by ANY form of human intervention. Flooding this unique landscape,
and destroying the habitats of numerous species of flora and fauna FOREVER, would amount to desecration of a common natural
resource which belongs to us all; and not just to those who believe they can buy and use the planet to make even more profit.

We are pleased that you have now at least recognised your responsibility by no longer avoiding discussion on this
matter and copies of this reply will be sent to the news media in Iceland and Norway to keep them informed too.

We
hope that you will now give full consideration to pulling out of this project; thereby avoiding treating an unique wilderness
area to the extreme environmental abuse which, in view of our dwindling natural planetary treasures, should be a thing of
the past in a civilised and educated society of which you no doubt consider yourselves to be a part. Far from influencing
the public debate in Iceland, which your plans triggered off in the first place, now is your chance to use your 'modest' influence
and interest to prevent a "planned natural catastrophe".